Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
False dichotomy. Adding funding in one area does not necessarily mean removing it from another. One hypothetical example, though relevant really to Alberta only, would be a sudden windfall from a rapid escalation in natural gas prices. Under such a scenario, the government could lend funding to such projects without the need to either cut somewhere else or deficit spend.
|
False false dichotomy.
Spending government revenue somewhere means you can't spend it anywhere else and that includes new government revenue.
New revenue is not free money no business, government or otherwise sane person would think so.
What could windfall fossil fuel revenues go to? Where do you start? Lets throw some red meat to the right wing and say we could reduce personal income taxes further. That would have significantly higher aggregate benefits than spending that money or arenas.
It could go to lowering costs of tuition.
Upgraded transit infrastructure.
Etc
etc
etc